heart wrote:I certainly never heard him do that distinction, nor have I ever heard anyone else do it except for you Malcolm.

/magnus

Well, following Yongdzin Rinpoche, JLA insists a lot on that distinction. In Bön texts, Rigpa and Marigpa are considered as "modes" (tshul) in which Mind (sems-nyid) or mind (sems) function in their respective manner. In other words, the ordinary mind (sems) functions in a mode which is that of Marigpa/ignorance (no recognition of the epiphany of the Base) while Mind itself (sems nyid) is functioning in the mode of RIgpa/knowledge (recogntion of the nature of the epiphany of the Base). In this second mode (that of Rigpa), the Mind "discerns" (rig) its own nature by spontaneously understanding and experiencing the separation of the pure from the impure (dwangs snyings phyed), pure being a generic code term for anything unconditioned or nirvanic and impure another code term for anything conditioned or samsaric.

Thus in the same way our ordinary mind works in a mode of ignorance right now without the faculty to discern (rig) its own nature, our Mind (sems-nyid) discerns (rig) its own nature and, in ZZNG wording, is the Absolute Body (bon-sku) knowing itself (rang-rig) and having no (other) "object" (of course it's not an object in a literal sense even though in Bon Dzogchen logic texts, this could be explained as such). But you'll get some texts which, out of poetic license, don't make difference between Mind (sems-nyid) and Rigpa (The Twenty-One Seals for instance), but in the end this is not a mistake, it's a literary shortcut. Of course, it may create confusion but Rigpa has been nearly reified in the mind of westerners so I guess it's important to understand the subtleties of identifications (for the sake of simplification) or distinctions (for the sake of clarification), both actually leading to understanding.

However, as far as translation is concerned, I don't know why but in English Mind (sems-nyid) is often (always?) rendered by "nature of the mind". This is actually a definition not a translation. Sems-nyid is "Mind itself" or "Mind" if you want to drop the "itself". Choosing Mind or Mind itself would help avoiding ridiculous renderings when encountering sentences like "sems-nyid sems kyi rang bzhin yin/" -- "The nature of the mind (sems-nyid) is the nature of the mind (sems kyi rang bzhin)", which I guess all here would consider as silly, no?

mutsuk wrote:However, as far as translation is concerned, I don't know why but in English Mind (sems-nyid) is often (always?) rendered by "nature of the mind". This is actually a definition not a translation. Sems-nyid is "Mind itself" or "Mind" if you want to drop the "itself". Choosing Mind or Mind itself would help avoiding ridiculous renderings when encountering sentences like "sems-nyid sems kyi rang bzhin yin/" -- "The nature of the mind (sems-nyid) is the nature of the mind (sems kyi rang bzhin)", which I guess all here would consider as silly, no?

Sems nyid is a translation of cittatā or citta dharmatā. The tā suffix can mean essence; it can also simply mean "is"; or also "itself" -- as you know it clearly depends on context.

In the example you give above, "the mind essence is the primal nature (prakṛti) of the mind", also redundant, but as you know sometimes tibetan texts are like that.

dzogchungpa wrote:Well, is Duff's translation as 'mindness' just totally off in a Dzogchen context then? As a native English speaker, 'mindness' and 'mind itself' do not seem to be synonymous to me.

I don't think so, if understood in the proper context. In general, when we add the suffix -ness at the end of an adjective, for example "soft", it refers to the quality of being soft--"softness". In the Western philosophical tradition, adding -ness to a noun, for example "tree", refers to the essence (essential quality) of a tree that makes it a tree--"treeness". Historically, this was associated with platonic ideal forms. Obviously that is not a valid approach in Buddhism. So, mindness, within the context Duff is using the word, can be thought of as refering to essence of mind without reference to any notion of ideal forms. "Mind-itself" can be thought of as "mind as it is in itself", another way of getting at the essence of mind.

So, although "mindness" is not your usual translation of sems-nyid, I think it works fairly well.

All things are unworthy of clinging to (sabbe dhammā nâla abhinivesāyā). --Shakyamuni BuddhaIf there is clinging, you do not have the view. --Drakpa Gyaltsen

Malcolm wrote:Sems nyid is a translation of cittatā or citta dharmatā. The tā suffix can mean essence; it can also simply mean "is"; or also "itself" -- as you know it clearly depends on context.

In the example you give above, "the mind essence is the primal nature (prakṛti) of the mind", also redundant, but as you know sometimes tibetan texts are like that.

sems nyid as essence of mind does not help much if one comes across sems nyid sems kyi ngo bo yin (the essence of the mind is the essence of the mind). Nyid is a simple reflexive tattva case.

You can render it this way: the mind essence is the entity of the mind.

In Tibetan it is always redundant, "the mind itself is the essence of mind" is also redundant.

That is why it necessary to look for context.It depends on whether nyid is rendering eva i.e. just so, etc. or tā as in chos nyid.

For example "'DI DAG GIS NI SEMS NYID GZUGS SU SNANG BA NYID DU BSTAN TO" "Both of those are the mind itself (or just the mind, only the mind) shown as appearing as matter/form" This is clearly an "eva" usage.

When the perceptions of matter and so on do not appear external to the mind, at that time the mind that definitely abides in the nature [dharmatā] of one's mind is called "non-dual wisdom".

So basically, the issue is distinguishing sems nyid as cittaiva and sems nyid as a gloss for citta dharmatā -- and sometimes that can be difficult.

For example, if we take your example and apply the principle that sems nyid here means sems kyi chos nyid, your sentence in both instances makes more sense "The dharmatā (nature) of the mind is the primal nature of the mind" and "The dharmatā (nature) of the mind is the essence/entity of the mind". It becomes a little strange if we say "The mind itself is the primal nature of the mind" or "The mind itself is the essence/entity of the mind" -- so the cittaiva does not work here.

anjali wrote:So, although "mindness" is not your usual translation of sems-nyid, I think it works fairly well.

Its ok, it just sounds weird to me, and honestly, it does not really convey the genitive sense of sems kyi chos nyid i.e. the dharmatā of the mind, which is in my opinion what the term sems nyid is generally glossing in Tibetan.

Jikan wrote:In ChNN's diction, "rigpa" is "instant presence": the recognition of the nature of mind. "being in it."

the nature of mind (sems nyid) is something like a latent capacity that is unrecognized, right? so the difference between the two is being in on the secret, getting it, recognizing it? which is to say, it's a kind of knowledge?

I get this confused from time to time; if I'm still upside-down on this, I do hope someone will set me right.

The nature of mind and the natural state are the same, so recognizing the nature of mind and rigpa is the same.

/magnus

Yes, correctly. ChNN Rinpoche says that Rigpa is instant presence through which we discover our Primordial State. The Primordial State is equivalent to absolute Boddhicitta, which is again equivalent to our Real Nature (Natural State/Nature of Mind). Rigpa is not the Primordial State itself, but it is exactly this discovery/recognition of the Primordial State.

"My view is as vast as the sky, but my actions are finer than flour" ~ Padmasambhava ~

Malcolm wrote:You can render it this way: the mind essence is the entity of the mind.

In Tibetan it is always redundant, "the mind itself is the essence of mind" is also redundant.

That is why it necessary to look for context.It depends on whether nyid is rendering eva i.e. just so, etc. or tā as in chos nyid.

For example "'DI DAG GIS NI SEMS NYID GZUGS SU SNANG BA NYID DU BSTAN TO" "Both of those are the mind itself (or just the mind, only the mind) shown as appearing as matter/form" This is clearly an "eva" usage.

When the perceptions of matter and so on do not appear external to the mind, at that time the mind that definitely abides in the nature [dharmatā] of one's mind is called "non-dual wisdom".

So basically, the issue is distinguishing sems nyid as cittaiva and sems nyid as a gloss for citta dharmatā -- and sometimes that can be difficult.

For example, if we take your example and apply the principle that sems nyid here means sems kyi chos nyid, your sentence in both instances makes more sense "The dharmatā (nature) of the mind is the primal nature of the mind" and "The dharmatā (nature) of the mind is the essence/entity of the mind". It becomes a little strange if we say "The mind itself is the primal nature of the mind" or "The mind itself is the essence/entity of the mind" -- so the cittaiva does not work here.

M

I have no problem with these examples, which however have no link with what I was saying in my first post. Here you use ngo-bo as entity. So I expect that in ngo-bo, rang-bzhin, thugs-rje, you'll use entity too. I'm sure this is not the case. So it's an example of a wrong choice leading the translator to turning around the meaning and not translating it. Like cittatâ and citta dharmatâ may refer to the same idea, the two words are different and the result should be different in translation. I see that too often in English translations, mistaking the definition for the translation, or changing the translation of a single word in the original language into several choices in the target language. It has become so frequent that in france, in theory of linguistics and translations, we call that "english translations" where you have a rendering of the meaning through definitions instead of through translation.

You think perhaps in Dzogchen you realize something different? My Guru teach both Dzogchen and Mahamudra.

/magnus

The realizations are almost identical, however Dzogchen often considers that Mahamudra doesn't consolidate Buddhanature to the same degree, as Mahamudra still entails a partiality towards directionality insofar as the unconditioned. While Dzogchen consolidates it a bit more via this lack of partiality.

You think perhaps in Dzogchen you realize something different? My Guru teach both Dzogchen and Mahamudra.

/magnus

The realizations are almost identical, however Dzogchen often considers that Mahamudra doesn't consolidate Buddhanature to the same degree, as Mahamudra still entails a partiality towards directionality insofar as the unconditioned. While Dzogchen consolidates it a bit more via this lack of partiality.

BodhiYogaDharma wrote:The realizations are almost identical, however Dzogchen often considers that Mahamudra doesn't consolidate Buddhanature to the same degree, as Mahamudra still entails a partiality towards directionality insofar as the unconditioned. While Dzogchen consolidates it a bit more via this lack of partiality.

Any valid source for that? Or is it just your personal opinion?

"My view is as vast as the sky, but my actions are finer than flour" ~ Padmasambhava ~

I agree that the distinguishing mind,nature of mind & awareness are of utmost importance in Mahamudra & Dzogchen. It is important in Kaygu Mahamudra, Bon Dzogchen & Atiyoga/Dzogchen.

ChNN makes the distinction often and feel no need to repeat the citations nor the many times i've heard him make these distinctions which are the core of the teachings.

GTWR in the Wonders of the Natural Mindlists the 4 qualities of the nature of mind (sems nyid) as 1) abscence of thoughts2)being in the basis of the moving mind3)being neutral, without bias of beieng virtous or nonvirtuous4)having unlimited potentiality for manifestation

And the 4 qualities of mind (sems) as1)seeing & memory2)when the mind thinks any thought can manifest3)when one does not think and observes the moving mind, it liberates into kunzhi/ie the basis of emptiness4)that if one allows one's mind to abide in the unchanging natural state, the mother and the son join inseparably

In Creation and Completion by Jamgon Kongrul, Khechen Thrangu Rinpoches commentary states ...in certain dzogchen practices..one takes awareness as the path rather than the mind...discussing the completion stage there are two aspects...one is to discover or generate stability in the mind and second is to generate clarity in the mind...in the Kaygu tradition we use 2 situations of mind,abiding (the mind that rests) and moving (presence of thought within the mind).. to come to decisive recognition of the mind's nature....this basic format of presentation of the mind's nature is called "abiding,moving and awareness"... the term mind is used to refer to what we would normally call thought or deluded mind...awareness is used to refer to the innate non conceptual cognitive lucidity of the mind. The point made in this tradition is that it is of great importance in meditation to properly distinquish between these two in you meditation experience.

Whether taking mind as the path as with Mahamudra or taking awareness as the path with certain dzogchen approaches, dinstinction between sems,sems nyid is of critical importance, in all 3 approaches. Albiet Mahamudra awareness is not identical to Dzogchen rigpa, recognizing one's mind and it's nature is important.

love light spacedave

edited to make a distinction between completion practices and dzogchen.

Working with the raw elements (air earth fire water space)is a process of connecting with the external elements and internalizing their qualities.Ultimately we can merge with the element. We connect the external quality with the internal quality and then dissolve the distinctions.Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche

I changed my mind and feel the need to clarify what is meant by rigpa according to ChNN; The Crystal and the Way of Light,pages 113-114

" In Dzogchen contemplation, free from the defects of sleepiness,agitation and distraction, both the moments of calm that occur between one thought and another, and the movements of thoughts themselves are integrated in the non-dual presence of Enlightened awareness...rigpa...But if one does not find oneself dwelling in the state of rigpa it is only by observing one's condition at all times (distinguishing mind/nature of mind) that one can know just which practices to work with an any given moment in order to get out of one's cage and to stay out of it."

OmAhHumdave

Working with the raw elements (air earth fire water space)is a process of connecting with the external elements and internalizing their qualities.Ultimately we can merge with the element. We connect the external quality with the internal quality and then dissolve the distinctions.Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche

Forgive the digression, but a little "back to the basics" never hurts.

Just got back from watching a two hour documentary which comprised of interviews with women that were active in the Greek resistance movement (against the Nazi occupation) during and after WWII. Torture, betrayals, executions, beatings, starvation, exile, etc... of women whose age (during the time of the resistance) averaged between 12-30. After hearing their accounts (most of the women are in their late 60's to early 70's now, little old women who, if you saw them walking down the street, you would never imagine...) all this seems, well... really, unbelievably, like completely... pointless and lacking any essence. So sorry for the attitude. (formatting mine)

The suffering in samsara can be horrific. Literally suffering that is beyond imagination for you and me is quite common throughout history. If we see the Holocaust, the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge, Rwanda and the like, as the ripening of negative karma, that makes us want to do something about it. If we understand that in order to do something, we must disengage our own involvement in the cycle of karma and rebirth first, we look to see how we are also participating in the same cycle. If we understand that our buying into our own fictional sense of self is the keystone to our participation, we want to see what is actually authentic and true about ourselves. That leads to the kind of discussion at hand.

Traditionally all this is done through the 4 thought that turn the mind to Dharma--which we all tend to dismiss as trivial. The contemplation of the suffering samsara, including the suffering of the hells, should not be skipped over. Too bad if it reminds us of Christianity, there's a point to it. As there is also a point to the contemplations of the precious human rebirth, impermanence and death, and karma. Correctly and thoroughly done it puts everything into proper perspective, and anchors us in seeing the meaning and point of spiritual pursuits, even if there is chaos all around us. The waters of samsara are never still, and there's no telling when the next tsunami will strike.

So when I hear about that little kid in China that had his eyes plucked out, I think of the negative karma I've sown in this life that has not yet ripened. I don't want it to carry over to the next life, so I practice. My practice hasn't developed to the point where the current discussion is applicable to it, but that doesn't mean that others can't benefit from the current discussion.

A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN

smcj wrote:The suffering in samsara can be horrific. Literally suffering that is beyond imagination for you and me is quite common throughout history. If we see the Holocaust, the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge, Rwanda and the like, as the ripening of negative karma, that makes us want to do something about it. If we understand that in order to do something, we must disengage our own involvement in the cycle of karma and rebirth first, we look to see how we are also participating in the same cycle. If we understand that our buying into our own fictional sense of self is the keystone to our participation, we want to see what is actually authentic and true about ourselves. That leads to the kind of discussion at hand.

Traditionally all this is done through the 4 thought that turn the mind to Dharma--which we all tend to dismiss as trivial. The contemplation of the suffering samsara, including the suffering of the hells, should not be skipped over. Too bad if it reminds us of Christianity, there's a point to it. As there is also a point to the contemplations of the precious human rebirth, impermanence and death, and karma. Correctly and thoroughly done it puts everything into proper perspective, and anchors us in seeing the meaning and point of spiritual pursuits, even if there is chaos all around us. The waters of samsara are never still, and there's no telling when the next tsunami will strike.

So when I hear about that little kid in China that had his eyes plucked out, I think of the negative karma I've sown in this life that has not yet ripened. I don't want it to carry over to the next life, so I practice. My practice hasn't developed to the point where the current discussion is applicable to it, but that doesn't mean that others can't benefit from the current discussion.

smcj wrote:Forgive the digression, but a little "back to the basics" never hurts.

Just got back from watching a two hour documentary which comprised of interviews with women that were active in the Greek resistance movement (against the Nazi occupation) during and after WWII. Torture, betrayals, executions, beatings, starvation, exile, etc... of women whose age (during the time of the resistance) averaged between 12-30. After hearing their accounts (most of the women are in their late 60's to early 70's now, little old women who, if you saw them walking down the street, you would never imagine...) all this seems, well... really, unbelievably, like completely... pointless and lacking any essence. So sorry for the attitude. (formatting mine)

The suffering in samsara can be horrific. Literally suffering that is beyond imagination for you and me is quite common throughout history. If we see the Holocaust, the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge, Rwanda and the like, as the ripening of negative karma, that makes us want to do something about it. If we understand that in order to do something, we must disengage our own involvement in the cycle of karma and rebirth first, we look to see how we are also participating in the same cycle. If we understand that our buying into our own fictional sense of self is the keystone to our participation, we want to see what is actually authentic and true about ourselves. That leads to the kind of discussion at hand.

Traditionally all this is done through the 4 thought that turn the mind to Dharma--which we all tend to dismiss as trivial. The contemplation of the suffering samsara, including the suffering of the hells, should not be skipped over. Too bad if it reminds us of Christianity, there's a point to it. As there is also a point to the contemplations of the precious human rebirth, impermanence and death, and karma. Correctly and thoroughly done it puts everything into proper perspective, and anchors us in seeing the meaning and point of spiritual pursuits, even if there is chaos all around us. The waters of samsara are never still, and there's no telling when the next tsunami will strike.

So when I hear about that little kid in China that had his eyes plucked out, I think of the negative karma I've sown in this life that has not yet ripened. I don't want it to carry over to the next life, so I practice. My practice hasn't developed to the point where the current discussion is applicable to it, but that doesn't mean that others can't benefit from the current discussion.

While your point about renunciation and compassion is well-taken, I can't help but think that many practitioners enfeeble themselves thinking that they are not capable of practicing the view of Dzogchen when it is far less complicated than Vajrayana praxis, for example. This seems to be particularly a problem with practitioners that convince themselves that only after long retreats and elaborate contrived practices will they ever meet with that which they most intimately are.

Karma Dorje wrote:While your point about renunciation and compassion is well-taken, I can't help but think that many practitioners enfeeble themselves thinking that they are not capable of practicing the view of Dzogchen when it is far less complicated than Vajrayana praxis, for example. This seems to be particularly a problem with practitioners that convince themselves that only after long retreats and elaborate contrived practices will they ever meet with that which they most intimately are.

Depends on the individual, but most have a great deal of conditioning which obfuscates their nature. The long retreats and practices (in the context of Dzogchen) aren't contrived or causal endeavors, but are implemented for the purpose of integrating body, speech and mind with wisdom. Retreat is a beneficial environment because it allows for the practitioner to relax in their nature without the distractions of daily life. After a certain amount of familiarity with vidyā comes about, then the individual doesn't really have to worry about becoming distracted, and daily life becomes an ornament of one's nature. This isn't the case for beginners though. Karmic propensities and habitual tendencies are the factors which obstruct our nature, and because they're habitual it's not so easy to cut through them without some time away from the in's and out's of daily life and our respective relative conditions. Even masters take time for retreat.

While your point about renunciation and compassion is well-taken, I can't help but think that many practitioners enfeeble themselves thinking that they are not capable of practicing the view of Dzogchen when it is far less complicated than Vajrayana praxis, for example. This seems to be particularly a problem with practitioners that convince themselves that only after long retreats and elaborate contrived practices will they ever meet with that which they most intimately are.

I can't remember where I heard it, but I believe that I've heard of people (tulkus mostly, but others as well) getting the pointing out instructions, becoming enlightened, and then going off to do retreat on Vajrayana practices. Why? Not to become more enlightened, they've already done that. But because by having mastered Vajrayana practice they will then have capabilities to help others that a Dzogchenpa would not. It is said that the realization of the Dharmakaya is for the practitioner, and the realization of the form kayas is for others. So it is not as if Dzogchen has the entire value of, say HYT.

Plus there are other people, like Theravadans, that have karmic scenarios where Dzogchen would not be the appropriate medicine for their illness. So it depends on the situation. If Dzogchen was the only practice that was necessary for everyone, it would have been the only practice that was ever taught. As they say there are 84,000 different teachings for 84,000 different scenarios, but I'd be surprised if anybody ever really counted them all.

A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN